Madras High Court
Malaikolunthu vs State Through on 6 September, 2024
Crl.A(MD)Nos.112, 185, 188 & 189 of 2024 and
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.16237 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 06.09.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.A(MD)Nos.112, 185, 188 & 189 of 2024
and Crl.O.P.(MD).No.16237 of 2023
Cause Title made in Crl.A.(MD).No.112 of 2024
Malaikolunthu ... Appellant/Accused No.2
Vs.
1.State through
The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Melur Sub Division,
Madurai District.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Melavalavu Police Station,
Madurai District.
(Crime No.39 of 2020) ... Respondents 1 & 2/Complainant
3.Lakshmanan ... Respondent No.3/Defacto complainant
Prayer : This Appeal is filed under Section 14A(2) of SC & ST (POA)
Amendment Act, 2015) to call for the records relating to the impugned order
passed in Crl.M.P.No.81 of 2024 dated 22.01.2024 on the file of the III
Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR) Madurai District and set aside
the same as illegal and arbitrary and enlarge the appellant/accused No.3 in
Crime No.39 of 2020 on the file of the respondent on bail.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/24
Crl.A(MD)Nos.112, 185, 188 & 189 of 2024 and
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.16237 of 2023
For Appellant : Mr.V.Karthir Velu, Senior counsel for
Mr.K.Jeyamohan
For Respondents : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar for R1 & R2
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
Mr.K.Suyumbu Linga Bharathi for
Mr.E.R.Bharathi Kannan for R3
Cause Title made in Crl.A.(MD).No.185 of 2024
Ajithbalan ... Appellant/Accused No.11
Vs.
1.State through
The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Melur Sub Division,
Madurai District.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Melavalavu Police Station,
Madurai District.
(Crime No.39 of 2020) ... Respondents 1 & 2/Complainant
3.Lakshmanan ... Respondent No.3/Defacto complainant
Prayer : This Appeal is filed under Section 14A(2) of SC & ST (POA)
Amendment Act, 2015) to call for the records relating to the impugned order
passed in Crl.M.P.No.3620 of 2023 dated 29.12.2023 on the file of the III
Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR) Madurai District and set aside
the same as illegal and arbitrary and enlarge the appellant on bail in Crime
No.39 of 2020 on the file of the respondent on bail.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Gandhi, Senior counsel for
Ms.A.Banumathy
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2/24
Crl.A(MD)Nos.112, 185, 188 & 189 of 2024 and
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.16237 of 2023
For Respondents : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar for R1 & R2
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
Mr.K.Suyumbu Linga Bharathi for
Mr.E.R.Bharathi Kannan for R3
Cause Title made in Crl.A.(MD).No.188 of 2024
1.Karmegam
2.Malaisamy ... Appellant/Accused No.2 & 4
Vs.
1.State through
The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Melur Sub Division,
Madurai District.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Melavalavu Police Station,
Madurai District.
(Crime No.39 of 2020) ... Respondents 1 & 2/Complainant
3.Lakshmanan ... Respondent No.3/Defacto complainant
Prayer : This Appeal is filed under Section 14A(2) of SC & ST (POA)
Amendment Act, 2015) to call for the records relating to the impugned order
passed in Crl.M.P.No.268 of 2024 dated 15.02.2024 on the file of the III
Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR) Madurai District and set aside
the same as illegal and arbitrary and enlarge the appellants/accused Nos.2 and
4 on bail in Crime No.39 of 2020 on the file of the respondent on bail.
For Appellant : Mr.V.Karthir Velu, Senior counsel for
Mr.K.Jeyamohan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3/24
Crl.A(MD)Nos.112, 185, 188 & 189 of 2024 and
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.16237 of 2023
For Respondents : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar for R1 & R2
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
Mr.K.Suyumbu Linga Bharathi for
Mr.E.R.Bharathi Kannan for R3
Cause Title made in Crl.A.(MD).No.189 of 2024
K.Gopalakrishnan ... Appellant/Accused No.1
Vs.
1.State through
The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Melur Sub Division,
Madurai District.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Melavalavu Police Station,
Madurai District.
(Crime No.39 of 2020) ... Respondents 1 & 2/Complainant
3.Lakshmanan ... Respondent No.3/Defacto complainant
4.Jeya Gowsalya ... 4th Respondent
(4th respondent is impleaded as per order of the Court dated 25.04.2024 in
Crl.M.P.(MD).No.4352 of 2024 in Crl.A.(MD).No.189 of 2024.)
Prayer : This Appeal is filed under Section 14A(2) of SC & ST (POA)
Amendment Act, 2015) to call for the records relating to the impugned order
passed in Crl.M.P.No.268 of 2024 dated 15.02.2024 on the file of the III
Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR) Madurai District and set aside
the same as illegal and arbitrary and enlarge the appellant/Accused No.1, on
bail in Crime No.39 of 2020 on the file of the respondent on bail.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4/24
Crl.A(MD)Nos.112, 185, 188 & 189 of 2024 and
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.16237 of 2023
For Appellant : Mr.V.Karthir Velu, Senior counsel for
Mr.K.Jeyamohan
For Respondents : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar for R1 & R2
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
Mr.K.Suyumbu Linga Bharathi for
Mr.E.R.Bharathi Kannan for R3
Mr.Henri Tiphagne for R4
Cause Title made in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.16237 of 2023
Jeya Gowsalya ... Petitioner/Defacto Complainant
Vs.
1.The State through the
Inspector of Police,
Melavalavu Police Station,
Madurai District.
(Crime No.202 of 2022) ... Respondent No.1/Complainant
2.M.Gopalakrishnan
3.M.Karmegam
4.R.Ajith Balan ... Respondent Nos.2 to 4/Accused Nos.1, 2 & 4
Prayer : This criminal original petition filed under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C.
to cancel the bail granted to the respondent Nos.2 to 4 in Crl.M.P.No.
2696/2023, dated 24.04.2023, by the learned Principal Sessions Judge,
Madurai, in connection with the Crime No.202 of 2022 on the file of the first
respondent police.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Suyumbu Linga Bharathi for
Mr.E.R.Bharathi Kannan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5/24
Crl.A(MD)Nos.112, 185, 188 & 189 of 2024 and
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.16237 of 2023
For Respondents : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar for R1
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
Mr.Niranjan S.Kumar for R2, R3 & R4
COMMON JUDGMENT
These appeals are filed against the dismissal of the bail applications
filed by the appellant/accused persons in Crime No.39 of 2020 and the
criminal original petition has been filed to cancel the bail already granted
against the respondents 2 to 4/accused persons in Crime No.202 of 2022.
2.In Crl.A.(MD).No.112 of 2024, the appellant Malai Kolunthu is
the third accused. In Crl.A.(MD).No.185 of 2024, the appellant Ajithbalan, is
the 11th accused. In Crl.A.(MD).No.188 of 2024, the appellants Karmegam
and Malaichamy are the accused Nos.2 and 4. In Crl.A.(MD).No.189 of 2024,
the appellant Gopalakrishnan is the first accused and one Jeya Gowsalya was
impleaded as fourth respondent, apart from the original defacto complainant
in all the cases. All the four appeals are pertaining to Crime No.39 of 2020 on
the file of the second respondent namely the Inspector of Police, Melavalavu
Police Station. Now it is pending before the III Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Madurai, in Spl.S.C.No.25 of 2021 for trial.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A(MD)Nos.112, 185, 188 & 189 of 2024 and
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.16237 of 2023
3.Since the facts are one and the same and the appellants are co-
accused, all the matters were heard together and the following common
judgment is passed.
4.The facts in brief:
The defacto complainant namely Lakshmanan, who is the third
respondent in all the appeals lodged a complaint on 24.02.2020 stating that
his wife namely Anitha is having ancestral properties in Sambiranipatti
Village, A.Vallalapatti, Melur Taluk. They are cultivating their lands. The
first accused Gopalakrishnan and his family members created trouble. So suit
was filed. It was also decreed in their favour. They made arrangements to
measure the property one year prior to the occurrence. Over that the
Gopalakrishnan and his associates and family members were enimical.
Adjacent to their land one Suresh is owning property. To him also the first
accused Gopalakrishnan made trouble. On 24.02.2020, after measuring the
property, Suresh and his father Dharmaraj were planting boundary stones. At
that time, the defacto complainant was present in the place of occurrence,
since Suresh was his friend.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A(MD)Nos.112, 185, 188 & 189 of 2024 and
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.16237 of 2023
5.At about 5.30 p.m., the first accused Gopalakrishnan and his
brother Karmegam, Malaikolunthu, Malaichamy, Veeranan and his relatives
came to that place with deadly weapons, abused them in filthy language,
picked up quarrel Gopalakrishnan assaulted him with stick, Malaikolunthu
tried to cause assault with aruval. Suresh prevented that assault. The cut fell
on the right hand of Suresh. Dharmaraj tried to stop. He was also assaulted by
Malaichamy, Karmegam and Veeranan with sticks and hands. He
vediographed the entire occurrence. On seeing the same, the accused abused
him in filthy language by calling upon him by his caste name. Again
Gopalakrishnan assaulted him with stick. Malaikolunthu assaulted him with
aruval on his neck region. The others pushed him down, caused injuries by
stamping. When he tried to escape from that place, the Gopalakrishnan
assaulted him with aruval. He suffered injuries on the back side of the head.
He fell down unconscious. The accused stolen away the cell phones, gold
chain worth about 5 sovereigns. He was admitted in the Government
Hospital, Melur and later referred to and got admitted in the Meenakshi
Mission Hospital, Madurai. In the hospital, he gave statement before the
Police officials. Upon which case in Crime No.39 of 2020 was registered for
the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 447, 341, 294(b), 323, 324,
307 and 379 of IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of The Scheduled Caste and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A(MD)Nos.112, 185, 188 & 189 of 2024 and
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.16237 of 2023
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015.
6.After completing the investigation, final report was filed before
the Special Court and the same was taken cognizance in Spl.S.C.No.25 of
2021. Now it is pending before the Special Court for trial. All the appellants
were granted bail by the special Court on 09.09.2020.
7.While they were on bail, Jeya Gowsalya, who is the fourth
respondent in Crl.A.(MD).No.189 of 2024, lodged a complaint with the same
police station, stating that her husband Suresh and his father-in-law are
witnesses in Spl.S.C.No.25 of 2021. On 18.12.2022, her husband namely
Suresh went to that land in a Car bearing Registration No.TN 57 BU 3745.
She was informed that at about 6.30 p.m., due to the previous enmity, the
accused Gopalakrishnan, the Karmegam, Barath, Ajithbalan, Ramar and his
wife Pandiselvi, Malaichamy, Thirumalai, Alagammal @ Selvi, murdered her
husband. That was informed to her at about 07.00 p.m., by one Prakash. They
immediately rushed to the place and found her husband dead with serious
injuries. On enquiry, she was informed that only the above said accused
persons caused the murder. On the basis of the complaint given by her a case
in Crime No.202 of 2022 was registered for the offences punishable under
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A(MD)Nos.112, 185, 188 & 189 of 2024 and
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.16237 of 2023
Sections 147, 148, 341, 302 and 506(ii) of IPC.
8.The defacto complainant in this matter namely Lakshmanan filed
an application to cancel the bail granted in this crime number before this
Court in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.10559 of 2022 and batch and bail was cancelled
by the order dated 31.03.2022, in view of the further occurrence in Crime No.
202 of 2022.
9.Against the cancellation order accused moved SLP before the
Honourable Supreme Court and that was disposed of with direction to the
accused to file bail application before the Trial court by the order dated
23.06.2023.
10.In furtherance of the above said direction or liberty, bail
applications were moved by all the appellants before the Special Court. And
all those applications were dismissed. Against which, these separate appeals
are preferred.
11.Crl.O.P.(MD).No.16237 of 2023:
The petitioner is the defacto complainant in Crime No.202 of 2022.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A(MD)Nos.112, 185, 188 & 189 of 2024 and
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.16237 of 2023
The respondents are accused 1, 2 and 4 in the crime. The defacto complainant
namely the petitioner herein lodged a complaint with the first respondent
police stating that the deceased was doing a business. She purchased a farm
land at Sambiranipatti Village, Melur Taluk and cultivating coconut trees.
The first accused namely Gopalakrishnan is also owning coconut garden
adjacent to the land. Because of the land purchase, trouble was crated by the
first accused and his relatives. Crime No.39 of 2020 was registered against
the first accused and others for the offences punishable under Sections 147,
148, 447, 341, 294(b), 323, 324, 307 and 379 of IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of
The Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Amendment Act, 2015, on the basis of the complaint given by the
Lakshmanan. The first accused and others warned the deceased not to give
evidence before the trial court. But, he refused. So the accused planned to
murder her husband and executed the same on 18.12.2022 as detailed in the
FIR.
12.After completing the investigation final report was filed before
the learned Judicial Magistrate, Melur, in P.R.C.No.17 of 2023. The
respondents 2 to 4 moved bail application before the Principal District Judge,
Madurai in Crl.M.P.No.2629 of 2023. That was allowed on 24.04.2023.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A(MD)Nos.112, 185, 188 & 189 of 2024 and
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.16237 of 2023
13.At the time of passing the order, vital aspects were not brought
to the notice of the Court. There is no mention with regard to the previous
antecedents of the accused. The accused are habitual offenders. By
suppression of facts bail has been obtained from the Principal District Judge,
Madurai. The cancellation of bail order in Crime No.30 of 2020 was not
brought to the notice of the Court. The order was passed on 31.03.2023. On
this ground this criminal original petition is filed seeking order to cancel the
bail granted to the respondents 2 to 4 in Crime No.202 of 2022.
14.Heard both sides.
15.Points for consideration in these appeals:
(I) Whether the principle 'Bail is the Rule and Jail is an Exception' can be
made extended to the people like the appellants, who indulged in
disappearance of evidence by wiping out one of the injured.
(II) Whether the appellants polluted the Process of Justice?
(III) Is it not the duty of the person to ensure that his personal liberty
should not endanger the life of other?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A(MD)Nos.112, 185, 188 & 189 of 2024 and
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.16237 of 2023
16.For the points to be decided Mr.Kathirvelu, learned Senior
Counsel and Mr.R.Gandhi, learned Senior Counsel, the learned Government
Advocate (Crl. Side), Mr. Mr.Henri Tiphagne and Mr.Bharathi Kannan, were
heard in depth. The appellants would submit that the appellant in Crl.A.
(MD).No.112 of 2024 is not an accused in the subsequent case registered
under Section 302 IPC. It is further submitted that the first accused namely
Gopalakrishnan is a Social Spirited person and he filed several writ petitions
and Public Interest Litigations for removal of encroachment. Because of that
only the case has been foisted.
17.Apart from that it is also submitted that it is a case in counter, in
which the first accused namely Gopalakrishnan has also suffered injuries on
his right hand. The complaint given by them was not taken into account by
police and so he has filed complaint under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the
Magistrate Court. So according to him, unless that matter is ripe for trial, the
present trial cannot be commenced.
18.Mr.Gandhi, learned Senior counsel would submit that it is not a
communal issue as projected by the prosecution. It is purely civil issue
between these two people. He also referring to the various cases filed by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A(MD)Nos.112, 185, 188 & 189 of 2024 and
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.16237 of 2023
Gopalakrishnan mentioned in the typed set of papers. It is also further
submitted by Mr.Gandhi, that whatever condition that may be imposed by this
Court, it will be complied by the appellant, by that their presence can be
ensured for trial, since prolonged incarceration is depriving their personal
liberty.
19.Per contra, the defacto complainant's counsel as well as the
learned counsel for the Jeya Gowsalya, submitted that there is specific
provision in the Special Act that trial must be completed within three months.
In spite of repeated orders passed in various courts the accused are not co-
operating with the trial Court. When the matter was called on 12.08.2024, the
learned counsel appearing for the accused withdrew their vakalath. So this
shows that they are not interested in the matter to be tried to its logical
conclusion. Four Courts have refused the bail to the accused consecutively.
Unless the security of the witnesses or victim as the case are protected fair
justice will be an illusion.
20. Mr.Henri Tiphagne would submit that the witness protection
must be the paramount consideration of this Court. When one of the witnesses
is murdered, the appellants are not entitled for any consideration for bail.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A(MD)Nos.112, 185, 188 & 189 of 2024 and
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.16237 of 2023
They are misusing the liberty.
21.Mr.Bharathi Kannan, who is appearing for the defacto
complainant would submit that there are three injured in the present subject.
Pending trial process one of the witness in the subject matter was murdered.
The first accused is a history sheeted person, involved in several cases.
22.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the
accused persons are interested in dragging the matter. When the matter was
called for commencing trial, they produced irrelevant records before the trial
Court for delaying the trial process; they went to the extent of pressurizing
the trial Judge from commencing trial.
23.In reply to the above said arguments advanced by the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor and defacto complainant and others, it is
submitted by the learned Senior Counsels that for the offence under Section
307 IPC, they cannot be kept in jail indefinitely. Moreover, the appellant in
Crl.A.(MD).No.185 of 2024, even as per the case of prosecution only stick
was used by him. Apart from that no specific overt act was attributed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A(MD)Nos.112, 185, 188 & 189 of 2024 and
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.16237 of 2023
24.The intention on the part of the defacto complainant is very
much apparent on the face of the record; The entire family members of the
first accused were implicated in both the matters. That is why this court in
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.17148 of 2021 quashed the charges against the accused
Nos.2 to 10, A12 and A13. Even in the murder case namely the subsequent
case, all the family members of the first accused are implicated. One of the
accused as mentioned above admitted in the government hospital and now he
is also suffering injuries in his right hand.
25.Finally both of them would submit that bail is a Rule and Jail is
an exception; this is the basic principle governing the field of bail
jurisdiction; That must be followed by this Court.
26.Now let us take the last leg of the arguments of the appellants.
Whether the principle 'Bail is the Rule and Jail is an Exception' can
be made extended to the people like the appellants, who indulged in
disappearance of evidence by wiping out one of the injured. This is the short
point arises for consideration as pointed out on the opening paragraph of the
discussion. Only on that ground earlier bail order was cancelled by this
Court. Later regular bail was also refused by the trial court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A(MD)Nos.112, 185, 188 & 189 of 2024 and
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.16237 of 2023
27.Whether false accusation has been made against all the family
members of the first accused, whether the first accused is a social spirited
person and issue between the poor people and the wealthy, who bend upon
encroaching the properties, are all matters which are alien to the discussion
now. Those matters can be taken up by the trial court at the appropriate time.
So I am not discussing on that issue and recording any opinion also. We will
carry on only with the merits of the matter.
28.As stated above, the trial process could not be commenced, in
spite of repeated direction issued by this court. According to both the parties
contra reasons are mentioned. With regard to the case and counter case issue,
this is the first time that is argued before the Court. If it is so, proper steps
might be taken by the appellants even at the initial stage itself. When their
bail is cancelled no plea was raised. When they are refused bail by the trial
court, no plea was raised. But for the first time as mentioned above such a
plea is raised. Perusal of records shows that first accused namely
Gopalakrishnan and some others were also involved in Crime No.288 of 2016
on the file of the respondent police on the basis of the complaint lodged by
one Pasumponmuthuramalingam. In that case also a plea was taken by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A(MD)Nos.112, 185, 188 & 189 of 2024 and
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.16237 of 2023
Gopalakrishnan that it is a case in counter and his complaint was not properly
investigated. He filed various Crl.O.P.(MD).Nos.2259, 2328 and 6150 of
2017. But, I am not expressing any opinion on that whether any similar
modus operandi is employed by Gopalakrishnan in stalling the trial process,
as mentioned above it is for the trial Court to take into account at the relevant
point of time.
29.Now as mentioned above, the short point is whether the
appellants have by their own conduct disqualified themselves from claiming
discretionary relief, in view of the subsequent murder case in Crime No.202
of 2022. Now in that matter also final report is filed and trial is going to be
commenced.
30.Now coming back to the opening paragraph of the discussion as
to the principle of 'Bail is the Rule and Jail is an Exception', is elaborated
further by the Honourable Justice Krishna Iyer, in the Celebrated Judgment in
Gudikanti Narasimhulu and others Vs. The Public Prosecutor, High Court
of Andhra Pradesh reported in (1978) 1 SCC 240. The following portion is
relevant for our discussion.
“7.It is thus obvious that the nature of the charge is the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A(MD)Nos.112, 185, 188 & 189 of 2024 and
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.16237 of 2023
vital factor and the nature of the evidence also is
pertinent. The punishment to which the party may be
liable. If convicted or conviction is confirmed, also
bears upon the issue.
8.Another relevant factor is as to whether the course of
justice would be thwarted by him who seeks the
benignant jurisdiction of the Court to be freed for the
time being.
9.Thus the legal principles and practice validate the
Court considering the likelihood of the applicant
interfering with witnesses for the prosecution or
otherwise polluting the process of justice. It is not only
traditional but rational, in this context, to enquire into
the antecedents of a man who is applying for bail to
find whether he has a bad record – particularly a
record which suggests that he is likely to commit
serious offences while on bail. In regard to habituals,
it is part of criminological history that a thoughtless
bail order has enabled the bailee to exploit the
opportunity to inflict further about the criminal record
of a defendant, is therefore not an exercise in
irrelevance.”
31.What is mentioned by the Honourable Justice Krishna Iyer in the
above said judgment is that if the parties are indulged in polluting the process
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A(MD)Nos.112, 185, 188 & 189 of 2024 and
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.16237 of 2023
of justice, they are not entitled for any consideration at all. Here as mentioned
above, they wiped out Suresh, who is the injured in the subject matter by
committing gruesome murder. Mr.Henri Tiphagne, who is appearing for
fourth respondent is also on the apprehension that her life may also be in
danger. There is no guarantee that these people will not indulge in another
crime. That is why he submitted that what he wants the protection from these
people and logical conclusion of the trial process. Mr.Barathi Kannan, who is
the counsel appearing for the defacto complainant also relied upon the
Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Mahendra
Chawla and Others Vs. Union of India and others made in W.P.
(Criminal).No.156 of 2016, which is on the very same point of witness
protection scheme.
32.From the discussion made above, I am of the considered view
that if the appellants are released on bail, there is no chance for fair justice;
There is no chance for the trial court to take up the trial process and complete
the same within the time stipulated. So it is not the fittest case to exercise the
discretionary power by adopting the principle 'Bail is a Rule and Jail is an
Exception'. So the order passed by the trial Court requires no interference,
even though one of the appellants namely Malaikolunthu is not the accused in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A(MD)Nos.112, 185, 188 & 189 of 2024 and
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.16237 of 2023
Crime No.202 of 2022. All the appeals deserves to be dismissed.
33.Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16237 of 2023:
Consideration for cancellation of bail is a serious issue, which must
be properly appreciated. The discussion made with regard to the conduct of
the respondents 2 to 4 the principle Bail is a Rule and Jail is an exception
cannot be extended to the people like the respondents 2 to 4, who have
misused the liberty granted. Side by side, this case also been discussed
namely Crime No.202 of 2022.
34.Now we will see the date and events in Crime No.39 of 2020.
The bail that was granted to the accused was cancelled by this Court in
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.10559 of 2020 and batch, dated 31.03.2020 for having
caused the death of Suresh, While the respondents 2 to 4 were on bail. The
date of order of the Principal District Judge, Madurai, in this matter is
24.04.2023. By the time, the order passed by this Court would have been
brought to the notice of the first respondent herein. But, reading of the order
does not indicate that those order passed by this Court were brought to the
notice of the Principal District Judge, by the police. It has been simply stated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A(MD)Nos.112, 185, 188 & 189 of 2024 and
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.16237 of 2023
before the Court that a case in Crime No.39 of 2020 is also pending. It was
informed that the co-accused were enlarged on bail by the High Court and by
the Principal District Judge, Madurai and investigation is completed and final
report filed taken cognizance in P.R.C.No.17 of 2020. Noting that the
respondents 2 to 4 are in custody for more than 106/110 days, bail was
granted as mentioned above. But, unfortunately, the bail cancellation order
was not brought to the notice of the Principal District Judge.
35.There is no guarantee as mentioned above that the respondents 2
to 4 will not indulge in similar crimes while on the bail, Since their past
conduct involving themselves in this crime, does indicate.
36.Moreover, relevant consideration as to the gravity of the
offences and the chance of committing crimes while on bail were not
considered by the Principal District Judge, Madurai, in the light of the
conduct of the accused. So I am of the considered view that the bail granted
by the Principal District Judge, Madurai to the respondents 2 to 4 in Crime
No.202 of 2022 is liable to be cancelled and accordingly, cancelled.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A(MD)Nos.112, 185, 188 & 189 of 2024 and
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.16237 of 2023
37.In the result, these criminal appeals stand dismissed. The
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.16237 of 2023 stands allowed and the bail granted to the
respondents 2 to 4/Accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 in Crime No.202 of 2022 stands
cancelled.
06.09.2024
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
TM
To
1.The Principal District Judge, Madurai.
2.The III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai.
3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Melur Sub Division,
Madurai District.
4.The Inspector of Police,
Melavalavu Police Station,
Madurai District.
5.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A(MD)Nos.112, 185, 188 & 189 of 2024 and
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.16237 of 2023
G.ILANGOVAN,J.
TM
Crl.A(MD)Nos.112, 185, 188 & 189 of 2024
06.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
